Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States cannot, for domestic reasons, 2 neglect their pre-established international responsibility. The treaty obligations of 3 States Parties are binding on all State powers and organs. 5. The States Parties to the Convention must ensure compliance with its provisions and their inherent effects (effet utile) within their respective domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties (i.e. those addressing protected rights), but also to procedural provisions, such as those referring to compliance with the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and applied in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties. 4 6. The States Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court have a duty to comply with the obligations established by the Court. This includes the duty to inform the Court about the measures it has adopted to comply with the Court’s rulings in its decisions. The State’s prompt observance of its obligation to report to the Court on how it is complying with each of the measures ordered is essential for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.5 a) Obligation to pay the amounts established in the Judgment (Operative paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Judgment) 7. The State reported that on April 20, 2010 it issued Decree N° 7158/10, in which it authorized the Secretariat for Human Rights to pay the amounts set in the Judgment. Furthermore, it reported that on April 28 and May 19, 2010, the payment was made to the victims along with the reimbursement of costs and expenses. 8. The representatives confirmed that State made the payments indicated. The Commission confirmed the payment of the indemnities but did not expressly refer to the reimbursement of costs and expenses. 9. From the information furnished by the parties, the Court concludes that the State has fully complied with the payments corresponding to compensation for nonpecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses ordered in Operative Paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Judgment. b) Obligation to publish the Judgment (Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment) 2 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, Series A Nº.14, para. 35, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 27, 2012, Considering para. 5. 3 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 17, 1999, Considering paragraph 3, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra note 2, Considering paragraph 5. 4 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37 and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana, supra note 2, Considering paragraph 6. 5 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2005, Considering paragraph 7 and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 1, Considering paragraph 3. 3